Dispatches from the Front -- Obama's lead
"The times they are a-changin," and changing quickly. To the swift go the spoils -- etc.
I didn't get to watch the debates last night. Instead I was sharing in a wonderful set of lectures on the Community of the Beloved Disciple given by my friend Dr. David Matson of Hope International University. But more on that later.
So what I must say is based on second-hand information -- this Facebook/ABC article is quite helpful. The reality is this, time is moving on quickly and the face of the nomination chase is changing quickly and dramatically. Reading several reports from last night, it would seem that like an episode of Survivor, the candidates know who they need to get rid of. Those two candidates are Mitt Romney for the GOP and Hillary Clinton. Romney has shown in the last few days that his problems lie not in his Mormonism (which in my mind should be no issue), but his chameleon-like nature. He changes to meet the moment and turns nasty when necessary. My sense is that in the end McCain will knock him out in New Hampshire and become the front-runner (with Huckabee possibly finding his spots). Waiting for Florida may turn out to be a mistake for Rudy -- just my opinion.
On the Democratic side, I didn't see the show last night but from the reports and the clips it seems that Hillary is like a cornered bear. When things don't go her way she turns bitter and angry. Anger doesn't sell very well. This you-tube clip gives you a sense of her demeanor -- which isn't pretty.
And what is this thing about 35 years? Until she became NY senator she had been first lady of Arkansas and first lady of the US. Yes, she has many accomplishments -- but this thing about 35 years -- John McCain can certainly best her on that kind of debate any day.
I didn't get to watch the debates last night. Instead I was sharing in a wonderful set of lectures on the Community of the Beloved Disciple given by my friend Dr. David Matson of Hope International University. But more on that later.
So what I must say is based on second-hand information -- this Facebook/ABC article is quite helpful. The reality is this, time is moving on quickly and the face of the nomination chase is changing quickly and dramatically. Reading several reports from last night, it would seem that like an episode of Survivor, the candidates know who they need to get rid of. Those two candidates are Mitt Romney for the GOP and Hillary Clinton. Romney has shown in the last few days that his problems lie not in his Mormonism (which in my mind should be no issue), but his chameleon-like nature. He changes to meet the moment and turns nasty when necessary. My sense is that in the end McCain will knock him out in New Hampshire and become the front-runner (with Huckabee possibly finding his spots). Waiting for Florida may turn out to be a mistake for Rudy -- just my opinion.
On the Democratic side, I didn't see the show last night but from the reports and the clips it seems that Hillary is like a cornered bear. When things don't go her way she turns bitter and angry. Anger doesn't sell very well. This you-tube clip gives you a sense of her demeanor -- which isn't pretty.
And what is this thing about 35 years? Until she became NY senator she had been first lady of Arkansas and first lady of the US. Yes, she has many accomplishments -- but this thing about 35 years -- John McCain can certainly best her on that kind of debate any day.
So, are you surprised that the latest polls put Obama by 10 points? I know that things can change quickly, but if Obama survived the debates, which he apparently has -- the question is -- who gets 2nd place? Will it be Edwards? Stay tuned?
Comments
But the difference is that she works for incremental change--especially after her experience with healthcare reform in the early '90s fell flat. Now, that's not bad. In a hostile atmosphere, such as the Clinton White House after the Gingrich takeover of the House in '94 or all 6 of her years in the Senate, incremental change may be all you can do. Edwards and Obama have done the same things when forced to do so.
But it doesn't help you make a case for sweeping change when that is the mood of the country. Would "back to the '90s" be better than the Bush years? DUH! Of course they would. But they wouldn't be good enough for our current challenges. The nation knows this viscerally and both Obama and Edwards make this case (with Edwards making it more on substance--just study the platforms on their respective campaign websites). You'll notice that when Edwards makes his case for change, he doesn't refer as much to his Senate record--nor does Obama. Both had some accomplishments--but they were incremental, just like Clinton's.
All 3 believe they can do more as president--but Hillary is not persuasive here.
P.S. You missed the best debates of the primary season--one which has had far too many of them.
And she has a point--Obama has been absent from some very key votes in the Senate where he was needed. He should have returned to D.C. to help Chris Dodd filibuster against immunity for communications companies who spy on citizens for the govt. He has rightly criticized Hillary for voting for Kyle-Lieberman and nearly giving Bush a green light on Iran--but Obama didn't even SHOW UP for that vote.
Many progressives like myself do wonder if he is more style than substance. Edwards, even as he defended Obama, made the distinction, "Every time he speaks out for change, every time I FIGHT for change, the forces of the status quo attack." He put himself with Obama as change agents and categorized Hillary as a force of the status quo--but he also characterized Obama as just a talker and not a fighter. It was great.
You could tell that while Obama and Edwards have differences, they can work together. You could also tell that neither one likes Clinton and she can't stand either one of them.